What would you think if you were told that the most bigoted, intolerant, hateful, and xenophobic political messages this election cycle are being spread by Obama supporters?

From ridiculing and disrespecting the Mormon religion to spreading secretly taped videos recorded by an Obama supporter in a Mormon church, those on the left are sanctioning this particular form of bigotry because it’s all for the cause: Obama.

Romney accompanied his brothers-in-law to a Mormon temple, where, donning white robes, he solemnly watched as they posthumously baptized their father [Ann’s father] through a proxy, according to a person present at the ceremony.

Yesterday, Breitbart’s John Nolte revealed that Gloria Allred’s October surprise client is spreading anti-Mormon hate around the Internet.

In one recent segment, which I took notes on right after the Tampa convention, Rachel Maddow, having attacked the religion in various ways and perhaps sensing her own intolerance, offhandedly remarked that everything she had said was “ok” because Romney mentioned his faith in his convention speech, rendering it fair game.

A quick perusal of the search results for “Mormon” on Salon.com, which resulted in 5 pages of results, reveals such headlines as “Is Mormon underwear magic,” “What we should ask Romney about Mormonism,” and “Ann: Mormon missions are just like military service!”

One Salon reporter, Alex Pareene, provided the loophole through which the average unbiased, unxenophobic, unprejudiced liberal can be excused in his article, “The coming war on Mormon jokes.” Writes Pareene:

Religion is already a bit of a gray area, because it obviously affects a person’s political choices much more fundamentally than, say, being divorced or a cancer survivor or any number of other biographical details that punditsi and journalists instinctively dismiss as irrelevant when it comes to picking a president….The Mormon Church, it should be noted, is also a conservative political institution, making it just as much fair game for criticism as a labor union or an interest group.

An anonymous man, who secretly recorded videos in the Mormon church, said of his motivation:

I would love to embarrass Romney. His promise to obey the Mormon “Law of Consecration” disqualifies him for the White House, in my opinion.

“Mormonism was created by a guy in Upstate New York in 1830 when he got caught having sex with the maid and explained to his wife that God told him to do it. 48 wives later Joseph Smith’s lifestyle was completely sanctified in the religion he invented to go along with it, which Mitt Romney says he believes.”

And of course, the left-dominated world of pop culture has embraced the bigotry. From the “Book of Mormon” musical to numerous Obama supporters’ ridiculing art, the mass of collective intolerance is overwhelming.

Why do Obama supporters get a free pass when it comes to spreading hate and intolerance for this particular religious belief? And as the Evangelical Christian movement seeks to cut out any anti-Mormon rhetoric, who are the bigots of 2012?

Supporters of gay marriage have reacted with anger at the passage of California Proposition 8, which amended the California state constitution to provide that only marriages that fit the traditional definition (one man, one woman) will be recognized. The resulting protest movement has devolved into anti-Mormon bigotry which has been met with silence by liberal civil rights groups. The anti-Mormon fervor has become so nasty, and is growing at such a pace, that it is time to speak out against the “Mormon boycott.”

I think the candidates’ religion is a legitimate topic. I have deep concerns about Romney’s religion. Did you know the minister of his long time church regularly went on long racist tirades? That the minister actually believed in crackpot ideas like the federal government inventing AIDS to commit racial genocide and that America is the source of all the troubles in the world? Oh,no, wait. That was someone else’s minister…I’m trying to remember whose.

Yes, thank you. Every GOP presidential candidate (and many other Republicans) are routinely attacked by the Left for their religious beliefs. But Democrats are immune from such attacks. Any Republican whose “spiritual mentor” had uttered one tenth of the deranged rantings of Jeremiah Wright wouldn’t have lasted a New York minute. Obama has said he talks to God every day, by the way, and that God gives him advice. Crickets in the media. A Republican saying the same thing would be ridiculed by left wing “comedians” and vilified by enraged haters like O’Donnell.

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

There was a reason why this little clause was codified. I believe the Founders foresaw days like this.

To the elites, Mormons are an “easy target”. They’re not going to fight back, they think.

But I dare them to mock Islam. Heck, I dare them to do a sixteen minute video about it! (You know what I mean.)

Isn’t O’Donnell a Catholic? Well, at least raised Catholic, since he went to a Catholic school in the Boston area. Think about how the Catholic Church was created and what we as Catholics believe?

Does he believe in Jesus died for his sins, the Resurrection, the Eucharist? What about the early Church and all those radical Christians, sacrificing their lives for the faith he was raised in?

Isn’t that completely crazy?

Yes, and I it is a matter of faith I believe these things. We live in a tolerant country, that even if you don’t believe in the Eucharist, which is a leap of faith even for myself as a Catholic, that we don’t make fun of people with such different ideas.

A lot of people are willing to vote for Romney without regards to his Mormon faith. A smaller number may be willing to vote for hime if they are required to embrace his faith as a prerequisite.

Requiring people to accept Mormonism as a requirement to vote for Romney may not be a winning proposition any more than it would be a good idea to require the acceptance of Christianity to get Jewish voters to vote for a Christian candidate.

Can’t I just vote for Romney because I think he would be a better President?

“A lot of people are willing to vote for Romney without regards to his Mormon faith.”

People can debate theology (Catholic, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Mormon, Jewish, etc.) till the cows come home. But the political arena is NOT the place for it. Period.

I have met quite a few Mormons in my 39 years of life. Two of them were teachers of mine – one in high school, one in college. The two of them, to the dot, shone by their exceptional character.

One of them (who was a son of Danish diplomats who spent many years in South America, where he got the alcohol booze, and didn’t clean up his act until he started AA and joined the LDS) challenged me one day, after a test I took to which I had arrived sleepless and tired (because I had drank a bottle of Dr. Pepper the night before while studying), to drop the soda for a few weeks. All caffeinated sodas. I took the challenge. Then, he told me to tell him how I felt a few weeks later.

I stopped drinking Dr. Pepper and Cokes altogether. Today, I drink no carbonated drinks whatsoever, and I feel healthier because of it. Sure, I give myself a little leeway for maybe a drop or two of coffee, but I am not a huge coffee drinker. I don’t live in it. I’d rather get a good night’s sleep. I have lost twenty pounds just for giving up sodas and get better sleep, better blood pressure and better days because I rarely touch caffeine. I owe all of that to that professor in college.

One time he even invited me to read the Book of Mormon – because he knew I’m Puerto Rican and that I study a lot of the native cultures and empires before Columbus. I don’t have to totally agree with him on that. I just have to see the fruits: he’s clean as a whistle and his life and family are all stable.

I have seen more messed-up, arrogant, etc. Baptists than I’ve seen Mormons. (Harry Reid comes to mind.) I can tell you that because I’m a Baptist myself.

When I saw Mitt Romney during the first debate with The One, I saw the Poster Man for Total Sobriety – in contrast to the Total Mess of a Man in The One (I think The One was on some powerful drugs or getting out of them). Romney didn’t have to toot his own horn to the world: all he had to do was to show his character. No quotes from the Book of Mormon. No sayings from the other books they read. Just character: be yourself.

Rather, he testified in 1991, when the Former Mrs. Stemberg sought to re-litigate her original settlement. Romney was called in to talk about the value of the 500,000 shares in Staples she received. Or Stemberg’s net worth. Something like that.

Her theory was that Stemberg had put up Romney to deliberately lowball the value of Staples. Like I’ve noted, this makes no sense — if Staples stock isn’t worth all that much, than The Former Mrs. Stemberg’s shares from the settlement are worth less, and that increases the chances a judge would agree that the original settlement was unfair, and put it aside.

But whatever. Her claim rests on the idea that Romney knew Staples would grow in value, but lied about.

Here’s the problem: As an initial investor, Romney had the option to buy a lot of Staples stock. If he really thought Staples were a surefire hit, he’d have exercised all those options, and bought as much stock as he was legally entitled to.

He didn’t. He said Staples could grow, or could fail, because, apparently, he believed it could grow, or could fail. Thus he hedged his own bets, buying some Staples stock, but not as much as he was entitled to.

As a fairly new Evangelical Christian, I don’t agree with Mormon theology. Enough said. But I will enthusiastically vote for Mitt Romney who seems to share many of my values, seems to be a truly decent human being, and is obviously fully competent to take over the helm as President. Contrast him with the petulant, narcissistic, petty, and embarrasingly incompetant man who currently holds the office and it’s no contest.

Each slight to Mormonism by a d-cRAT socialist extremist MUST BE COUNTERED by a reference to OBOZO’s anti-American, racist, anti-Semitic, hate-filled Black Liberation Theology, which was indoctrinated into him by his mentor for more than 20 years, the bigoted, vile, white-hating, despicable pile of excrement called rev. jeremiah “God D@#$ America” wright.

I’m a Catholic, not a Mormon. I recall when anti-Catholic bias was part and parcel of our politics.

Here’s a situation where, I would suggest, the Mormon Church has to step up. The Catholic bishops comment in politics when they think it is appropriate (for better or for worse, depending on your beliefs), and I think the Mormon elders should start doing the same.

Billy Graham makes statements. Other Protestant church leaders make statements. One way to take the sting out of this “anti-Mormon” nonsense is to do what Mitt did in the debates — explode the very notion that there is something “extremist” about being a Mormon.

Mormon church leaders getting out there on TV, the press, etc, expressing reasonable, real-world, common sense, deeply felt and impeccably logical statements will be as useful as anything my cardinal does. Perhaps more.

First, let me get it on the table. I grew up a non-Mormon in heavily (>80 percent) Mormon country. I freely admit to not liking the Mormon Church a lot (they insisted on being called the LDS church); I would say I am borderline bigoted.

HOWEVER,my antipathy does not extend to individual Mormons, in my experience they are decent, family centered, people. I would go so far as to say a bit more so than most others. They take care of each other, etc. etc.

My problems starts when they get together in their church. If they aren’t dominate in an area, they are not a problem–likely an asset.

In summary, judge the man based on his actions. From everything I have heard, he is a charitable (mostly back to the Church) decent guy that does the right thing.Or at least tries, whether or not he is on camera.

BTW, I am an atheist that respects religious people. Most religions teach their followers how to be better people; I have no problem whatsoever with that. All religions, from the non-believer’s POV, have some strange legends/myths. The Navajo think a coyote started it all–would O’Donnell mock that? I think not. You can be sure he wound never say question anything about Mohammed.

These people are not going to just sit back. They have proven themselves shrill, at best, many times in the past. Vote fraud, race baiting, fear-mongering on reproductive issues, conspiracy theories, anti-religious coda, class warfare, have also been far too common from the Left when facing close political contests.

Frankly, I am surprised that the Democrats and their surrogates have not been nastier than they have been so far.

You should see the crap that Katha Pollitt just posted at the Nation. And look at the comments.

Congress and the Bureaucracy have incredible inertia. Even Reagan had trouble denting it. Truman said something along the lines of, “Poor Ike. he will sit here and order ‘do this, do that,’ and nothing will get done.” And there is the Constitution and the Judiciary. The notion that Mitt Romney could Mormonize this country is as baseless as the stuff thrown at John Kennedy and Al Smith (undersea tunnel to the Vatican, Protestant Children being declared bastards).

Third:

Nevada is considered a battleground state. It is over six percent Mormon. Its possible that some of them are also union members who have been towing the party line. That would be one less vote for Obama AND one more for Romney.

If you’re a Mormon, you know that none of this is particularly new. We’ve endured the same outrages and open hostility for 180 years, but frankly the really intense hatred comes from Mormon liberals.

What is new and very interesting, is not the left’s new found open hostility to the previously obscure LDS church, but the fact that it’s own aggressive agenda has brought about a new, and previously unthinkable alliance. Mormons and Catholics have worked together for decades, but the threat Obama and Progressives represent to people of faith, has seen a previously unthinkable rapprochement between Mormons and Evangelicals. While not a major news story, Billy Graham’s endorsement of Mitt Romney and the removal of the LDS church from the cult list is huge! The ramifications for a unified socially conservative political movement won’t show up on the radar just yet, but mark my words–it will be a factor in the future.

So for Mormons, the hostility has simply shifted, and gone mainstream, but frankly, it’s easier to deal with at that level. Purely from an LDS church perspective, this has all been a net gain.

The Left would hate Mormons even if Romney was an Episcopalian. Look at what Mormons believe and practice: self-reliance; strong family; helping their own; having children after marriage; healthy eating; no alcohol, tobacco or drug use; entrepreneurship; sharing with others; community and church service; and self-improvement.

It’s no accident that Steven Covey took much of the LDS creed, secularized it and came up with “Seven Habits for Highly Successful People”.

Where is Harry Reid coming to the defense of his religion? Oh ,thats right ,he’s with the liberal gay catholic priests & bishops buggering boys. I saw a post on another site that Obama has a majority of the catholic vote. As a born & raised Catholic in the 50s ,I dont even know my Church. At least I can admire most Mormons tho I cant buy their religion.

Obama got 54% of the self identified Catholic vote in 2008, just a bit higher than his percentage at large. I can’t imagine him doing near that well in 2012. I would be highly suspect of any poll that says otherwise. Of course the media loves to parade around the so-called Catholics for Obama but many of them are relics from the 1970s.

In my own parish the Obama faction are mostly a handful of the devout elderly and a few highly affluent “hummingbirds” from Florida who are really Catholics in name only. I’d bet many of them haven’t been to confession in years because sin is what other people do. I’ve seen two cars with Obama bumper stickers in the parking lot before mass compared to a couple of dozen with Romney Ryan stickers.

Now that we are free to speak our minds, free of accusations of prejudice, bias, bigotry, and various phobias, I have a number of grievances to air.

First, individuals subscribing to the atheist faith have been responsible for the murder, enslavement, and discrimination of more people than any religion, except, perhaps, for Islam. This is in part due to the inconsistent nature of this belief system, where individuals are only united in their rejection of theism.

Second, individuals subscribing to the Islamic faith have been responsible for the murder, enslavement, and discrimination of more people than any religion, ever. In fact, they are still conducting themselves in the traditional fashion with little or no accountability, especially in Africa.

Third, the inability to distinguish between philosophy and science has caused a progressive corruption of the latter. Individuals who cannot acknowledge what they know, don’t know, or are incapable of knowing, should not be permitted to sabotage or exploit scientific discovery and enterprise, and certainly not to justify involuntary redistribution schemes.

Fourth, redistributive change is a form of involuntary exploitation and a principal cause of progressive corruption.

Fifth, contemporary conception of “diversity”, affirmative action and similar policies, are, in fact, inherently discriminatory. They denigrate individual dignity and their exploitation have been the cause of progressive civil and human rights violations.

Sixth, civil rights business were established to break the will and increase the risk to a minority who engaged in involuntary exploitation and discrimination. They evolved their business model to extort concessions through the promise of withdrawing negative incentives. This cannot be tolerated on a general basis and it is imperative that the actions and operations of these business be regulated and constrained.

Seventh, elective, premeditated abortion of a developing human life is murder. It doesn’t matter if the life is terminated by the mother or a doctor’s hand. From conception, the organic body and its constituent components develop. Shortly thereafter, consciousness, which is reasonably correlated to originate or expressed through the brain, develops. There is no legitimate justification for the termination of a developing human life after consciousness can be reasonably ascertained. Whether it is for reasons of eugenic, population control, or personal convenience, it cannot be tolerated and certainly not normalized. This behavior, more than any other, constitutes evolutionary dysfunction. It is the principal means for committing generational suicide. It devalues human life.

Well, that’s a start.

Oh, one more thing. The so-called “green energy revolution” is a lie. The recovery and processing of materials used in manufacturing photovoltaic cells in solar panels and motors in windmills causes environmental damage and injury to human life. Just because the devastation occurs in places which are out-of-sight and out-of-mind (e.g. China), does not mean it is “green” and certainly not without significant impact. And as the raw materials required to construct this technology are finitely accessible, it can not be considered “renewable” in the prevailing marketing sense. The production of energy using solar panels and windmills cannot be reasonable isolated from the environment, and therefore the conversion of solar and wind energy using present technology is not suitable as primary energy producers.

Finally, as we are strictly limited in our ability to discern the system in which we exist, the implication is that we all adhere to a faith, even one which is constrained to a limited frame of reference (i.e. science). This would suggest that the principles engendered by a faith be judged by extrinsic criteria. Perhaps we can consider a universal faith with an axiomatic foundation, including: individual dignity and intrinsic value of human life.

I prefer to be a neutral arbitrator. However, when that is impossible, I will grudgingly accept the duty of prejudiced prosecutor. Unfortunately, there is a progressive (meant literally and as a pun) bias to circumstances which demand the latter.

It is about exploiting differentials to advance political, economic, and social standing. They emphasize inconsequential differences (i.e. “judgment by skin color”) in order evoke a response based on fear, envy, distrust, and hate. This is the defining strategy underlying the various class wars.

I greatly appreciate your article as well as this blog as a whole. I have been a lurker for some time and will continue to read. While I understand your motivation for including the photograph, may I kindly ask that you consider removing it? Displaying it is a bit insensitive for your LDS readership. That said, it’s your blog and your rules.

Please keep up the good work on this blog! It’s certainly high on my daily reading list.

It’s been my experience these kinds of attacks can often backfire. Religion is a complicated issue. In many parts of the world people are the same religion as their parents because they are seldom if ever exposed to another faith. Even in America where so many people freely change or completely abandon faiths there are a remarkable number of people who don’t ever seriously question their family’s religious heritage. There are also many who do but who won’t be open about it while a beloved parent is alive. Thus when you attack someone’s religion many voters see this as also being an attack on their family and their cultural heritage.